BNP membership list.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please provide the following information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

In November 2008 the membership list of the British National Party
(BNP) was published online. On September 1, 2009 a disgruntled
former official Matt Single was convicted in relation to this for
offences under the Data Protection Act.

I refer to Schedule 1 of The Data Protection Principles.

Under Schedule 1, any use of 'sensitive personal data' must be
processed
only when at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
at
least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met.

1. Please tell me if Warwickshire Police has processed any data
relating to the leaked British National Party membership list.

2. Please tell me which of the conditions in Schedule 2 and
Schedule 3
were met when processing sensitive personal data?

3. Has sensitive personal data been used for any purposes other
than
comparing against the Warwickshire Police personnel database?

4. Who was responsible for the decision to compare sensitive
personnel
data against Warwickshire Police's personnel data?

5. What were the grounds for such a decision?

6. I request the minutes of any meeting held to come to such a
decision.

7. Please describe the process used in making such a decision and
whether the consequences of this decision, if any, were assessed.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Walker

Solidarity Trade Union

Dear Sir of Madam,

Thank you for your response of 3rd November 2009. I would like to
request an internal review of the decision not to disclose
information.

As you will be aware there is a general right of access to
information held by public authorities. In OGC v Information
Commissioner [2008] EA/2006/0040, 5.3.07 (at para 71) the High
Court approved the following statement:-

“[T]here is an assumption built into FOIA that the disclosure of
information by public authorities on request is in itself of value
and in the public interest, in order to promote transparency and
accountability in relation to the activities of public
authorities.”

You have claimed exemptions which are subject to a public interest
test. This requires you to take into account the public interest in
deciding whether to release information even when an exemption
applies. In short, our understanding is that the public interest
may override the exemption.

It is our belief that there is a presumption in favour of
disclosure in the Act created by the reverse emphasis in section 2.
We argue that where the balance is even, the public interest in a
particular disclosure should prevail.

We wish the review to consider the following points:-

1. The public would assume that the Police forces had obtained and
reviewed a copy of the leaked BNP list as there is a policy banning
BNP members from serving in the force and the list was leaked onto
the Internet (via Wikileaks). Several forces have publicly
disciplined workers on the basis that they were on this list. At
the time Spokespersons for Forces were happy to tell the Press that
they were "scouring" the list for people to discipline. Several
forces have also confirmed that they hold the list for this purpose
and others in response to FOI requests. We argue that claiming
exemptions on the grounds you do is therefore misconceived.

2. The only criminal charge we are aware of relates to Matt Single,
the person convicted under Data Protection law for leaking it. No
other criminal matter relating to the list has been brought before
the courts. It is difficult to understand what kind of criminal
investigations might be prejudiced by answering our request,
therefore.

3. We argue that it would be possible for you to disclose
information in response to our request that does not relate to the
areas covered by the exemptions. A blanket refusal is not a
proportionate response.

4. You have failed to fully consider the public interest in
disclosure. Specifically we would like the Review to consider the
public interest in:-

(a) Assisting public understanding of an issue that is subject to
current national debate
(b) Enabling a proper debate of issues relating to Data Protection,
Privacy, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Expression and misuse
of Government powers to the detriment of individual rights. We
argue that an informed debate cannot take place without wide
availability of all the relevant information.
(c) Allowing individuals affected adversely in Employment
information which they can refer to in order to challenge
discrimination on political grounds.
(d) Allowing analysis and scrutiny of the effect and implications
of a major policy decision with Human Rights implications
(e) Providing our Union sufficient information to allow us to make
representations on this issue. See Case No A.31/00 relating to the
enforcement of The Open Government Code of Practice on Access to
Government Information enforced by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
This is particularly important to us as we have members who are or
may be directly affected in their employment.
(f) Providing our Union with information which can be used to see
the practical implications of a limitation on the right of Freedom
of Association. This is important as further restrictions are being
considered. In fact we recently gave evidence to the Smith review
(concerning Education) on this point, amongst others.
(g) Providing information which makes individuals and institutions
accountable for decisions.

Our Union argues that the substance of the information we have
requested relates to a matter of serious and legitimate public
concern and its disclosure will inform public debate. The public
interest in disclosing the information outweighs any public
interest in not disclosing it.

Yours sincerely

Mark Walker
Solidarity Trade Union
www.solidaritytradeunion.org

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bn...